JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. Letter No. C.27015/12-28/Misc.(MZ) Gen/95-DAT/313 dated 29.10.2007 of the Asst. Director of Accounts and Treasuries, Mizoram is the subject-matter of challenge by which alleged misappropriated GPF money of the respective GPF account holders (petitioners) are being debited to their respective GPF accounts denying the representation of the writ petitioners to keep the misappropriated amount in the "suspense account". 2. The writ petitioners herein are all excise personnel and being regular government servant are subscribing GPF as per GPF (Central Services) Rules, 1960, which has been made applicable to the employees of the Government of Mizoram. Petitioners while were discharging their duties, the respondent No. 7, who was functioning as cashier in the office of the Superintendent of excise, Kolasib illegally withdrawn various amounts in the name of the petitioners by forging the signature of the DDO, i.e., the Superintendent of Excise, Kolasib District, Kolasib on a number of occasions. For the purpose of withdrawal of money in the names of the petitioners, respondent No. 7 had shown fictitious account numbers in the name of the petitioners and as a result, the funds deposited by the petitioners in their GPF account were shown withdrawn by the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 6. The manner in which the respondent No. 7 had withdrawn the huge amount of money from the GPF account of the petitioners was not known to the petitioners for a long time but respondent No. 5, the Superintendent of Excise, Kolasib District being suspicious of the behaviour and the modus operandi of the respondent No. 7 investigated into the matter and found that the respondent No. 7 had withdrawn a huge amount of money in the names of the petitioners from their GPF account and accordingly submitted an First Information Report against the respondent No. 7 with the Kolasib Police Station. The matter was also informed by respondent No. 5 to respondent No. 4 vide his letter dated 16.8.2005. Case was registered and it was handed over to ACB and ACB P.S. Case No. 1 of 2006 under Section 468/409, IPC read with Section 13(1)(a)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against respondent No. 7. Investigation commenced but it has not been finalized as yet. 3. The respondent No. 5 being in a capacity of the DDO scrutinized the illegal action of respondent No. 7 and found a sum of Rs. Investigation commenced but it has not been finalized as yet. 3. The respondent No. 5 being in a capacity of the DDO scrutinized the illegal action of respondent No. 7 and found a sum of Rs. 11,22,600 withdrawn on various account in the name of the petitioners. 4. The petitioner came to know of the illegal withdrawal of their GPF amount from their GPF accounts by respondent No. 7 by forging their signatures as well as DDO and providing the fictitious accounts, they approached the authorities concerned and submitted representation to respondent No. 3 requesting him not to show the said illegal withdrawal in their respective accounts and to put the amount in "Suspense Account" and not to debit the subscription from their pay bill to their respective GPF accounts. Respondent No. 4 had also written a letter requesting respondent No. 3 to keep the misappropriated amount in the "Suspense Account" in view of misappropriation of the same by respondent No. 7, but the respondent No. 3 without paying any heed to their request as well as respondent No. 4 started debiting the subscription from the pay bills of the respective petitioners to their respective GPF account. It is alleged by the writ petitioners that such debit of the subscription from the respective pay bills towards the respective GPF account is illegal since the petitioners did never withdraw such amount from their respective accounts. It is to be noted that in response to a reminder to the respondent No. 3 by respondent No. 4, respondent No. 3 vide letter No. C.27015/12-28/Misc.(MZ)Gen/95-DAT/313 dated 29.10.2007 (impugned letter) informed that the misappropriated money had been debited to the GPF accounts of all concerned GPF Subscribers (49 persons) on the basis of payment voucher received through treasury as such amount was drawn from public account. 5. Being aggrieved thereby the writ petitioners filed the instant writ petition challenging the aforesaid letter dated 29.10.2007 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). 6. Respondent No. 3 by filing an affidavit-in-opposition contended that the impugned amount of Rs. 11,22,600 had been withdrawn in the name of the petitioners from their respective GPF accounts and until proof of alleged withdrawal by forging the petitioners' and DDO's signatures by respondent No. 7, misappropriation thereof by respondent No. 7, the withdrawal of said amount cannot be branded as illegal withdrawals. 11,22,600 had been withdrawn in the name of the petitioners from their respective GPF accounts and until proof of alleged withdrawal by forging the petitioners' and DDO's signatures by respondent No. 7, misappropriation thereof by respondent No. 7, the withdrawal of said amount cannot be branded as illegal withdrawals. Though the FIR was lodged and a case registered against respondent No. 7, the allegations, so brought in against respondent No. 7 are yet to be proved and in the face of the above fact, keeping the amount (Rs. 11,22,600) in "Suspense Account" is not justified since the same was expended from the public account. The debit of the subscription is being made to the respective GPF account on the basis of payment schedule and vouchers. 7. In paragraph-10 of the affidavit-in-opposition it is contended that all the bills including withdrawal of GPF from the account of the subscribers are drawn from Government/public account through treasury on presentations of the bills supported by an expenditure, sanction accorded by the competent authority. The bills of the alleged illegal withdrawals were passed by the treasury (respondent No. 6) for payment after satisfying that they were in order, sanction orders were intact and withdrawals were within the permissible limit. Therefore, according to respondent No. 3 unless this misappropriation is proved against the respondent No. 7, the withdrawals from the GPF accounts of the respective petitioners cannot be said as illegal withdrawals, which require to be debited to their respective GPF accounts from their pay bills. 8. In the context of the writ petition we heard argument at length from the counsel of the respective parties. 9. The core issue to be decided in this writ petition is whether the letter of the respondent No. 3 cannot be set aside and quashed and an appropriate direction can be made in view of the facts and circumstances of the case appearing in the face of the record. It was argued by Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners that respondent No. 7 being the cashier of the Department of Excise, Kolasib, where respondent No. 5 was DDO during the relevant period withdrew various amounts from various GPF account of the writ petitioners, which after scrutiny turned to be an amount of Rs. It was argued by Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners that respondent No. 7 being the cashier of the Department of Excise, Kolasib, where respondent No. 5 was DDO during the relevant period withdrew various amounts from various GPF account of the writ petitioners, which after scrutiny turned to be an amount of Rs. 11, 22, 600 and misappropriated the same for which respondent No. 5 lodged an FIR with Kolasib Police station which was later handed over to ACB for investigation. ACB P.S. case No. 1 of 2006 was registered under Section 468/409 IPC read with Section 13(1)(a)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act against the respondent No. 7. Charge sheet is yet to be filed by the investigating agency against the respondent No. 7. It was argued by Mr. Malhotra that while withdrawing such amounts from the GPF accounts of the respective petitioners, respondent No. 7 forged the signatures of the respective petitioners on various occasions as well as the DDO and submitted the bills to the treasury for payment and accordingly she became successful in withdrawal an amount of Rs. 11,22,600 from the GPF accounts of the writ petitioners. Since the petitioners did never apply for withdrawal of GPF amount from their respective accounts, it was argued by. Mr. Malhotra that debit of subscription to the respective GPF accounts from the pay bills of the petitioners is not justified. Since the petitioners are doubly taxed for no fault of themselves, the amount so withdrawn by respondent No. 7 ought to have been put/kept in the "Suspense Account" until a decision of the criminal proceeding against respondent No. 7 which initiated per First Information Report of the respondent No. 5, the DDO. It was also argued by Mr. Malhotra that the amount which had been illegally withdrawn by respondent No. 7 by preparing false bills and forging their signatures, it virtually belong to the writ petitioners and keeping of the said amount in "Suspense Account" will not cause any prejudice neither to the writ petitioners nor to the Government. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 ought to have kept the said amount in the "Suspense Account" and ought not to have debited the subscription towards their GPF accounts from their pay bills, Mr. Malhotra, argued. 10. Controverting the submission advanced by Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N. Sailo, learned Addl. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 ought to have kept the said amount in the "Suspense Account" and ought not to have debited the subscription towards their GPF accounts from their pay bills, Mr. Malhotra, argued. 10. Controverting the submission advanced by Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N. Sailo, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State respondents submitted that the debit of the subscription from the pay bills towards the writ petitioners' respective GPF accounts cannot be said to be illegal or not in accordance with law/rules, since the GPF amount had been withdrawn from the respective GPF account of the writ petitioners on various dates by presenting bills duly signed by the DDO from the public account. Until allegation of misappropriation by respondent No. 7 is proved in the court of law, such, withdrawal made through bills within the permissible limit cannot be branded as illegal withdrawals and put in "Suspense Account". It is true that the allegation brought in against the respondent No. 7 is yet to be proved in the court of law. The allegation that respondent No. 7 forged the signatures of the writ petitioners and the DDO on various occasions for the purpose of withdrawal of GPF amounts through bills are yet to be substantiated by the Investigating Officer by laying a charge sheet against her and proof the same before a court of law. The amount which had been withdrawn from the Government/public account for the purpose of payment to the writ petitioners are all Government money, which are required to be adjusted by debiting the subscription (fixed) towards the respective GPF account from the pay bills of the writ petitioners. It was contended by the respondent No. 3 that keeping the amount in the "Suspense Account" would encourage loss to the Government and is also not permissible as per rules minus the proof of illegal withdrawals. Mr. N. Sailo, learned Addl. Advocate General, therefore, argued that the writ petition does not have any merit and it warrants dismissal. 11. I have given my anxious consideration of the facts narrated in the writ petition and the reply of the respondent No. 3 in the form of an affidavit-in-opposition. There is no dispute in respect of withdrawal of various amounts from the GPF account of the respective petitioners amounting to Rs. 11,22,600. 11. I have given my anxious consideration of the facts narrated in the writ petition and the reply of the respondent No. 3 in the form of an affidavit-in-opposition. There is no dispute in respect of withdrawal of various amounts from the GPF account of the respective petitioners amounting to Rs. 11,22,600. But the allegation of such withdrawal by respondent No. 7 being the cashier by forging the signatures of the respective petitioners and the DDO, the factum of misappropriation of the entire amount is yet to be proved in the court of law. Unless and until such allegations are proved against respondent No. 7, withdrawals of GPF amounts on various occasions in the name of the writ petitioners by respondent No. 7 cannot be branded as illegal withdrawals. Such withdrawals were made by presenting bills, which were sanctioned by the appropriate authority within its permissible limit. Therefore, such withdrawal of GPF amount from the GPF account is required to be adjusted by debiting the subscription/installment towards the GPF account of the respective petitioners from the pay bill. The question of keeping the amount in the "Suspense Account" in the facts situation does not arise. I see no reason to set aside and quashed the impugned order/Letter No. C.27015/12-28/Misc. MZ) Gen/95-DAT/313 dated 29.10.2007 passed by the respondent No. 3. 12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with no cost. However, it would be open for the petitioners to make a representation to the appropriate authority/authorities. Petition dismissed.